HRI Columnists

HRI Selections

HRI Featured Bloggers

John Pricci

HorseRaceInsider.com executive editor John Pricci has over three decades of experience as a thoroughbred racing public handicapper and was an award-winning journalist while at New York Newsday for 18 years.

John has covered 14 Kentucky Derbies and Preaknesses, all but three Breeders' Cups since its inception in 1984, and has seen all but two Belmont Stakes live since 1969.

Currently John is a contributing racing writer to MSNBC.com, an analyst on the Capital Off-Track Betting television network, and co-hosts numerous handicapping seminars. He resides in Saratoga Springs, New York.

Monthly Archives

Syndicate

Saturday, December 22, 2012

SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY, December 22, 2012—With this site giving a voice to horseplayers via Indulto’s always entertaining and occasionally provocative “Players Up” blog, bettors always will have a vehicle for expression.

It never fails to humble your not-so-humble narrator when readers weigh in with opinions and suggestions. The dialogue that often occurs in our comment section sometimes gives birth to creative ideas vis a vis wagering or any other aspect of the best game played outdoors.

Indulto’s most recent blog gave birth to an idea advanced by Roger, who occasionally comments here at HRI. And if Roger hasn’t the jackpot with his idea for a new wager with an interesting wrinkle, it certainly provides food for thought:

How does the HIT-64 sound? Well, before explaining what that is, the following is a comment Roger wrote to Indulto which gives his philosophy on potential life-changing wagers, such as the Pick 6. Roger wrote [edited for length, context]:

“P-6 play today is basically [limited to] So Cal tracks, NY tracks, and Churchill Downs for their 2 big days in May. The P-6 is a HUGE mathematical advantage for big bettors and pool players that can afford as many selections as possible...

“High-end customers more than likely win 80% of P-6s...not necessarily because they are great handicappers rather [by playing] the right races in which they could afford to have four-to-eight selections in a maiden race, etc.

“For instance, [at] Del Mar’s 37-day meet last summer, I believe nearly half of the days had carryovers, with over 35% of the P-6 races being maiden races of some sort. Personally, I pass on these “unlimited cost” [situations].

“I will resume playing a multi 6-race exotic when an A-type track offers an alternative for the small [or] mid-sized exotic player. I’ve proposed over the years an exotic bet called HIT – 64, [with] a $1 minimum and a $64 maximum attached to each ticket.

“I’d like to bring back REWARDING sharp handicapping at minimal investment....that’s a heckava lot more appealing than a news report of someone winning a $200,000 P-6 on a $4,200 ticket.”

Roger’s remarks and Indulto’s point is that certain kinds of wagers and/or betting promotions give an unfair advantage to those participants vis a vis the entire population that might be wagering into any particular pool.

The logical extension of their notion, the concept of carryovers is basically unfair: Bettors get to win money from people who have no risk in today’s pool, having lost money yesterday or the day before, etc., etc.

Incentive to bet, of course, comes from the reality that today’s players are betting into a pool with a lower takeout because of yesterday’s losses. This “free money” is certain to attract more handle, the added liquidity giving rise to payoffs that would be more equitable.

As much as anything else, less liquidity makes those last-minute odds swings more dramatic than they would be if there were more money in the pool.

For this HIT – 64 concept to work most efficiently, there should not be any consolations paid when bettors select a Perfect 6. If nobody picks 6, the pool should be distributed to the winners of 5, or 4, etc. And there are other variables.

Considering the degree of difficulty, the HIT – 64 must be a low takeout wager, which these days are a consensus 15%. To insure its success early on, tracks or ADWs should seed the pool, lowering takeout further.

As an aside, “guaranteed pools,” with the exception of rainy days with an inordinate number of late scratches, turf races being rescheduled and the like, are bogus, simply a function of the handle history of said wager.

Knowing that a Pick 4 is going to attract $200,000 come hell or high water, offering a $200K guarantee is so much window dressing, not a windfall.

A concept like the HIT – 64 at once rewards good handicapping and puts the rank and file player on near even footing with the whales. It would be far more difficult, and certainly time consuming, for big bettors to fashion 20, 30 or 40 tickets, etc.

Constructing Sub-tickets that are as costly as Main tickets are either counterproductive, inefficient, or both. Ascribing the same weight or importance to, say, six or eight horses, as opposed to the one, two or three preferred selections, is not the best use of betting capital.

In the modern era of high takeout, bets such as the one suggested by Roger are promotable to newbies and sometime players because it gives them the same opportunity for a score as the bettor with the big bankroll.

Racetracks give perks to their biggest players and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. But if I were running a business, I would want 100 satisfied customers collectively betting the same amount.

For whatever reason, chances are much better that the one player a track or ADW depends on will walk away before 100 people become disenchanted to the point of becoming disenfranchised.

Roger,
The pool distribution is definately the key to success here. Now that I understand it better, I really like it, though I would prefer not paying out to fewer than 4 winners unless that was the maximum picked.

NYRA should replace the Grand Slam with this and use it on races 1-6 at 15% takeout (or less). It might do better than the CA early P5.

You’d think some B track would give it a try. If not that, then a better dime p6 with no consolations and 5% new money to a jackpot.

I, you might have a point. If only four winners are picked, obviously it was a very difficult sequence, and maybe winners of P4 should divide the spoils amongst themselves.

R, I agree with I that the distribution--a win, place and show for handicappers--is the key to success here. Keeping as many players as possible liquid keeps the player--and churn--alive. Now a good idea is a VERY good idea. Let’s see how this shakes out.

The reason I had a three tier payout for 6 and 5 winners being most....want to get a player some of his small investment back.The other top winners still get that payout too.

I really think this HIT - 64 could have a 6 figure pool at an A type track as players get more familiar with the payouts and consolations.If I bet the maximum on the HIT-64 5 days at total cost of $320 for the week...I’m fairly confident I can get some of money back,most of my money back and if things break right...who knows? I might have 4 winners one day and have 70% of the pool:)

What is hard to understand, and I would have never understood it until I went through it is the difficulty of getting anything done. Too many people in positions of authority are fine with the status quo as long as the paychecks keep coming in.

This thing with the P6 bonus in California has been a major dust up since I proposed it 3 months ago.

Bottom line is that you have to find someone who is reasonable and is willing to run the numbers and at least give you a shot. Finding someone like that is like trying to find YOU CAN FILL IN THE BLANKS. It ain’t easy.

The exotic bet name....when I first presented this to the CHRB and CA executves back in 2000....I called it PICK 64 aka P-64. I then spent 2 years discussing the bet with Bill Murphy at Gulfstream Park and thought it was a go in 2010 as HIT-64 but then Murph moved on.

I’m not locked in on the name but lets think about it for awhile and then decide what everyone or most
think is best. The current list for a non-carryover 6 race exotic bet with a $1 minimum and $64 maximum attached per ticket.Feel free to suggest.
===============================================
*PICK 64 aka P-64
*HIT-64 aka H-64
*MAX 64 aka M-64
*SCORE 64 aka S-64
*LIMIT 64 aka L-64
*BIG BANG 64 aka BB-64

The thought crossed my mind ...if not for Indulto and John Pricci for encouraging me to contribute and all.Maybe a blog name out of respect.
================================================
PRICCI’S HONOR-64 aka PH-64

I’m flattered, Roger, but if you want this to get off the ground, delete me. As stated, Max 64 had the right tone vis a vis definition, but Score 64 just might be more apt: Score is the goal and 64 the max amount. But, yes, let’s keep the name game going.

Tracks payouts issue. I think all tracks should be mandated to POST PAYOUTS by their minimal cost of wager. For instance...GP’s Rainbow 6 shows payouts for 6 winners = $1 - $15,000 when in fact the bet is a minimum 10 cent wager so the payouts should reflect that = $1,500 for a dime.

MAX SCORE-64.....one or the other ....if you combined them my first reaction is MAXIMUM SCORE $64....that’s not appealing.Maybe another name will pop up but right now it seems SCORE-64 aka S-64 has the edge.

Golly, maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. After wagering on the ponies for five decades, and losing, apparently all I have to do is hang on for a couple more years when the Hit-64 (or whatever it is called)is implemented; then, I can dust off the architect’s drawings of my once desired chalet in Maine and begin construction.

Imagine, win, place, show; doubles; triples; pick three, pick four, pick five, and pick six wagers; as offered today are going to be brushed aside, ignored in fact, as degenerate gamblers, casual bettors, and newbies are going to attain prosperity via the new wager Hit-64. Now, the ‘whales’ (people who happen to be able to wager more than you or I) are no longer going to attain an advantage derived from their ability to
bet more (no thought given to the fact that these whales lose substantially more when their plug runs up the track, and creates much higher odds for the bettors who wagered on other nags).

Like the designated hitter in baseball, the two point option in college football, and the three point shot in basketball, this Hit-64 is going to revolutionize Thoroughbred racing.

Over the years, I would be ecstatic if I had three winners on a given day wagering on the ponies.
This Hit-64 requires a bettor to pick six winners, no problem right? And, now the discussion is what should the worst wager in horse racing be called.

I once thought, but now I know, that the majority of commentators at HRI are not serious bettors, certainly do not have an ADW account, and wager peanuts - just the kind of advocates Thoroughbred racing needs.

re. payouts - problem is different tracks have different minimums on the same bet. For example, Woodbine has 20-cent minimums on Pick 4’s.
One of the questions you hear most often at the OTB I go to is - For how much? And that’s with the regulars.
That’s why I think all payoffs should be posted to $1. The math is easy and would eliminate confusion.

Score-64 requires you to select 6 winners but you can still get paid with LESS than 6 winners...big difference than current multi 6 race exotic P-6.The
NO CARRYOVER format ensures payouts with 5 or 4 winners too.

Just as you explained it Roger. Not to worry, WMC likes to criticize ideas, even on his favorite part of the game--gambling--but rarely does he contribute to the dialogue with constructive ideas of his own.

Yes, Mr. Pricci, in the five or so years I have commented at HRI I have never contributed to the dialogue with contructive ideas of my own.

Again, the pick six, in any format, is the worst possible wager available to horse players. For anyone to promote this wager, in any format, is utterly ridiculous. How many times have any of you readers won the pick six in your lifetime? How many times have any of you readers had six winners in one day? Hmmmm?

I applaud Roger for trying to come up with new ideas, but this won’t do what you wish it would. There are several problems with this whole scheme.

1)"[It keeps] as many players as possible liquid keeps the player--and churn--alive.” No it doesn’t. Long horizontal wagers kill churn and liquidity. Money put into this is out of commission for 2 and a half hours, five races at the host and many times that for the simo signal.

2) “It would be far more difficult, and certainly time consuming, for big bettors to fashion 20, 30 or 40 tickets, etc.” Not at all. A simple change on something like Steve Crist’s Ticketmaker would spit them all out in seconds and batch betting would input them just as fast.

3) “A concept like the HIT – 64 at once rewards good handicapping and puts the rank and file player on near even footing with the whales.” You will never be on equal footing with the whales. If they want to scoop the pool, they will hit it hard and it will be no different than any current pool. As a small player, you have to think like a small player. If you think you are a big timer, your bankroll will be gone so fast you won’t know what hit you.

4) “In the modern era of high takeout, bets such as the one suggested by Roger are promotable to newbies and sometime players because it gives them the same opportunity for a score as the bettor with the big bankroll.” No it doesn’t. This is the worst kind of bet for a low bankroll or new player to jump into because he WILL LOSE. Picking 4 right without being able to spread wherever you wish is extremely difficult for an experienced player, and when it’s not, you are going to get about $.50 for your consolation.

Mr. Corrow may have been his usual blunt self but he wasn’t wrong on this. Now, since I’m sure to be attacked for just coming here to pee on your parade, there is a type of bet that will do most of what you think this will do. Not my idea as I think they do it in Europe. Essentially it’s like an exacta but the two horses you pick have to finish in the top 3. This is a quick bet, so it doesn’t kill churn. It’s very easy to understand for new and experienced players. It’s an easier exotic to hit than any currently offered, so it’s great for newbies.

Again, it’s a good idea Roger, but it’s not going to do what you think it is.

I respectfully disagree. The Score-64/HIT-64 will have many more small - mid size players CASHING TICKETS than they do with current Carryover P-6.

How many times in a 5 day week do you think 6 winners will be highest winners with a $64 maximum attachment? If it’s 2 times then 5 pays out 55% ..4 winners = 30 % and 3 winners 15% the other 2 or 3 times a week and maybe it’s just 2 times and then 1 day with 4 winners as tops with 70% of pool and 3 winners with the remaing 30%.

The joy of CASHING TICKETS should never be underestimated by anyone involved in this game. There will always be UNIVERSAL JOY shared by newbies and oldtimers alike CASHING TICKETS....the difference is how much they CASH and the majority group this multi race exotic bet is targeted to is far less than what satisfies the WHALE.The WHALES/Pool Players will still have their Carryover P-6 to feast on.....SCORE-64 might appeal to the other players that currently don’t bet the Carryover P-6 format.

I think you’re taking a WHALE LEAP that Score-64 would get the same investment amount as a Carryover P-6 in So Cal or NY.

That’s just it Roger. If a big player wants to go after this thing, he’s not going to only spend $64. He’ll spend whatever it takes to take the thing down. The types of players you want to appeal to SHOULD NOT be playing this kind of bet if you want logevity, churn and liquidity. I know you are trying to come up with a good idea, but this will not work the way you want it to. The Pick Six is a big boy bet. This bet is a Pick Six with a small variation which actually makes it even worse than a regular pick 6 if you happen to win it. Leave it to the big boys. Nothing wrong with them having “their” bet.

IF they do....congratulations but the NEWS still is
Score-64/HIT-64 hit today on a ticket that cost LESS than $65 and many customers will be cashing 4 winners if he or she selected 6 winners.I guess you’ll continue to use the WHALE hypothetical as your sole argument rather than look at the thousands that might enjoy
the non Carryover - 3 tier payout for 6 and 5 winners as tops.I know I would and I’ve been playing 44 years.

Again, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that this won’t work out like I think it would be. I’ve created new successful wagers (rolling double in 1991 as example) during my 9 years at HPark from 1990-99 and created the first computer productivity system for NBA/College basketball in early 80’s.I proposed this 12 years ago and I’m as confident this would appeal to the majority racetrack customer today as I was back in 2000.

Of course, until this exotic bet is implemented...we’re both speculating.The P-6 is a big boy bet you say....fine but it doesn’t appeal to every customer and that’s why quite a few tracks have dropped the P-6 in the last 20 years and the P-6 pools have declined at major tracks.

Well Roger, if cashing is all that is important, then why don’t we just return $.50 of every non-winning wager on a win bet and pay the actual winners out of what is left? Everybody gets to cash then.

Seriously though, and just in case you wonder, that wasn’t, why not just have Horsey Lotto? Quick Picks across all 9 races on the card with a guaranteed $100,000 or some such for hitting the whole sequence? It will teach people to play about as well as this thing does.

I was an economist once upon a time and the key in that discipline is discovering if the incentives of a plan match the desired outcome of that plan. I do not see it here and see no evidence, only wishful thinking.

I’d be interested to hear what actual wagers you invented and how you determined their viability and how they worked out. The rolling double is great. Play with it myself once in a while, but it wasn’t a new wager. It’s simply placing an existing wager in every race available. Unless you invented the double in the first place. Again, a good idea, but not a new thing like this.

I made the point that I’ve been in racetrack management for 9 years at a major racetrack during a time that HPark was quite successful.If you want to diminish the rolling double....fine but until 1991 no other track had the bet in their wagering menu.I said I created the rolling double not invented it.

We disagree on this proposal and like the rolling double...I would say I created this wager not invented because it’s a P-6 tweeked with no carryover provision and a maximum bet attached per ticket.

Just for fun...how about a few of us post their Score-64 selections for Santa Anita’s Opening Day using the $1 minimum / $64 maximum format with all of us playing one $64 hypothetical ticket and see how many winners we can hit and discuss after.

Not diminishing anything. Said I like rolling doubles. It was a good thing to do. You said you created successful wagers and I asked what they were as this wasn’t a new wager. Now you say this thing is just an augmented Pick Six. I agree. But why make things so hard? Why stop at paying down to 4 winners. Why not pay down to 3 or 2 or 1? What is the rationale for picking 4? Why not do this with the Pick 3s 4s and 5s as well?

You’ve proposed something new and intersting. Now tell me why my 4 comments above are wrong and why this thing will work the way you say it will. I’m all for it if you can show that it will work the way you say it will. I’m not for it right now as I simply see it as a way to dupe new and inexperienced players into bad bets which is bad for them as well as for the experienced players in the existing pools because that is all that much less newbie money to keep existing players alive. To me this looks like a lose-lose proposition. You’ve had 12 years on this. Show me where I’m wrong.

Hey Denny, I wouldn’t take that bet. It is something that makes me wonder if Roger is right about this thing as the Rainbow 6 is essentially a 72% takeout bet. Shocked people play the thing except on mandatory payout days. Surprised it got up that high so quickly but whatever. I take it all back Roger. Denny reminded me of another existing dupe bet that is working. But then again the $.10 mins there were supposed to be for the little guy too and I don’t think that has worked out so well either.

I seem to remember The “economist’s” taking a position against a low-takeout $.50 Pick 5, elsewhere, as well. I noticed that no “plan” was required to dismiss your idea, only to defend it. Is that the way they do it in academia? However, I still think it wouldn’t hurt to run the numbers to see what difference not paying out on 3 would make when it’s not the maximum hit.

The $2 min. carryover P6 is indeed a “big boys’” game that fewer and fewer “little boys” play, even though everyone is interested in the wager. There a market for affordable participation—even with other people’s selections. I only play the P6 on days with a multiple stakes race sequence; generally averaging less than half my pick 4 play on the same sequence when playing on my own. I would be more likely to play your bet on sequences with multiple maiden races which I avoid today. After boycotting CA tracks until this year’s BC Preps at SA, my bankroll is in better shape to play P5s without a partner.

My concern with the name is the “64” aspect which might prevent the bet being experimented with as a $.50 or even $.25 minimum wager, and at multiple venues.

“Hit Six,” “Score Six,” and “Bet Six” seem less incongruous to me.

I would be remiss if I avoided pointing out that the existing “High Five” suggests the possibility “Short Six.” Unfortunately, detractors will refer to it as the “Sick Six” under any circumstance, so maybe you should head them off with “Slick Six.” LOL

I’ll try to get some selections up for SA, but don’t hold your breath waiting for the naysayers.

I fully understand the “64” name concerns.However, I do think 64 is important given that this would be the only wager with a maximum dollar attached to any wager and that would be a good reminder....which we all need playing the horses from time to time:)

Tracks reducing the minimum below $1 would only diminish the appeal of bet and increase the number of consolations. Score-64 - $64 maximum = $128 in $2 Carryover P-6 seems inviting yet challenging.

Would you prefer this Payout Format
======================================
6 winners = 55% ...5 winners = 30%...4 winners = 15%
-------------------------------------------------
5 winners (most for the day) = 65%...4 winners = 35%
-------------------------------------------------
4 winners (most for day or less than 4) = 100%
=================================================
I think it’s safe to project that the 5 winners top and 4 winners top will together be the common payout vs 6 winners each week with the $64 attached maximum.

Hi Denny. The bet I was referring to is called the “Swinger” in the UK. What I had failed to remember is that they pay different amounts for 1st and 2nd, 1st and 3rd, and 2nd and 3rd. A reasonable way to do it I suppose.

FYI, I still think the P5 is a bad bet and no more so in CA. It’s real contribution at those tracks was to reduce the effect of the players boycot from raised take on certain exotics. Take hasn’t come down and slowly but surely, as the intrepid link poster has demonstrated, the boycotters are coming back. Good work! You now have a bet that is very difficult to hit AND higher takeout on those that are easier to hit. Hell of a trade off. You may now resume patting yourselves on the back.

SCORE-64 hypothetical ticket for Openung Day at Santa Anita....if time permits. We can do this
several times on certain dates/tracks.
-----------------------------------------------
*SCORE-64 seems the right fit for name.

*Still open on whether to include 3 winners in the consolation payouts.The latter Payout Format I posted may be more suitable.

*Rainbow 6 yesterday was hit for over $300k on a 10 cent ticket that cost $152.50 which obviously has the same VAST combination selections as $1 minimum $1,520 ticket and over $3,000 for $2 P-6. The format of unlimited combination selections has kept me from this playing this bet the last several years.
------------------------------------------------
SCORE-64 is unique vs P-6 and Rainbow 6:

a).there is NO Carryover

b).there is a LIMITED number of combination selections vs unlimited amount in the P-6 and Rainbow 6.

c).there is a minimum amount to bet ($1) and a maximum amount ($64) to bet per ticket vs no maximum amount per ticket in P-6 and Rainbow 6.

d).for the most part...SCORE-64 REWARDS good handicapping vs the size of your bankroll/number of combination selections you can afford like the P-6 and Rainbow 6.

In terms of payoffs for 3 winners, you couldn’t designate a % worthy enough without taking away from the “better” handicappers.

If you do reward winners of 3, I think you would deduct it from the winners of 4, meaning 5% for 3. You won’t “make” any money but it would keep more players liquid for the next race/day.

In the case of 4 being the “big” winners, maybe 20% goes to the “3” because of obvious difficult sequence.

However, I seriously doubt “3” is viable, and it does cheapen the “good handicapping” aspect. For $64, you could do a bad job and come up with 3, yes?

As for degree of difficulty in the overall, clearly this bet is not for everyone, requiring a decent-sized bankroll that wouldn’t be seriously diminished by losses sure to come. With any of these wagers, you will lose far, far more often than you win, but when you win you do get paid and sometimes, albeit rarely, in a life-altering manner.

John -
==================================================
*not fond of 50 cents minimum but if persuaded then
adamant against 3 winners in consolation payouts when 6 or 5 winners is tops for the day.I played my hypothetical $64 SCORE-64 ticket for Santa Anita. Will I select 6 winners or 5 winners...maybe but I’m confident that I can at least select 4 winners and get a PAYOUT with a consolation or two.The $64 investment - risk/reward on the most LEVEL PLAYING FIELD amongst bettors attracts me to this wager.That will ultimately decide if SCORE-64 is successful to the majority bettors (bankroll of $300 or less)....the daily investment = risk/reward and the perception/reality of the LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.The daily TOPS Payout will determine that when there are some $25,$40 winners and a beaten favorite or two and 4 winners is TOPS.

*the SCORE-64 difficulty is expected but remember this will be the most LEVELED PLAYING FIELD in a multi 6 race exotic
so the difficulty,for the most part, is equally shared. The eventual tops winners (6,5,4) of the day will reflect that so that’s not going to discourage the majority bettor.....having $30,$25 payouts in the first 2 or 3 legs of P-6 is discouraging for the small -mid size player cuz he can’t cash with 4 winners.SCORE-64 you can lose 2 races out of the 6 and still get a PAYOUT.That’s appealing to many horseplayer’s that KNOW they had a good day picking 4 winners but didn’t ever get paid in the P-6 and now they can with SCORE-64.

*I disagree that this bet isn’t for everyone....maybe not the whales/pool betters cuz No Carryover provision but the $2 - $24 bettor in this type of exotic wager will welcome the challenge knowing 4 winners gets paid.This is what I believe based on my experience as a horseplayer for 44 years and track executive for 9 of those years that checked on grandstand,clubhouse,Turf and V.I.P players each day during the “live” meet and as off track facility.

*Why do you need a decent sized bankroll? My driving force has always been for the majority bettor/customer in the grandstand/clubhouse that comes to the track with $300 or less.I have nobody to blame but myself if I bet $64 with that many combination selections and I don’t have at least 4 winners.I’m not blaming big bettors/pool bettors...only my handicapping.I just think betting a maximum $320 a week for a $64 wager each day in the week with that many combinations I will have at least one payout with 4 winners and hopefully will be when 5 is tops when I get back 35% of pool with x amount of consolations...all I need is conservative $80 payout with 4 consolations to break even for the week. Better yet...that 4 winner day comes when 4 winners are the most.There may be another customer that will bet $24 a day which totals $120 for the week and he or she will only blame themselves if they couldn’t pick at least 4 winners in one card during the week with the extra combination selections. That’s what the game is to me...just keep plugging along until that hot day or few days in the month where I’m picking right and the photo finishes are coming up right.There would be HOPE brought back inside the grandstands with SCORE-64 because of the $64 maximum attachment per ticket and the perceived LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

There are some very sharp handicappers down in the grandstand area with many years of experience reading the Form,etc.Tracks talk about increasing attendance...it STARTS with the grandstand and always will.HOPE is just the beginning.

^I am inclined to agree with you on the 3 winner consolation when 4 winners is tops.

Well, it appears the wheel has been reinvented.
After decades, a new method of wagering has been discovered.

Well, readers, remember for you to get involved in the SCORE-64 it requires your money.

How about Wendell’s $54 or out; this wager leaves you with $10 for beers - all ears, right? Pick any racetrack, find three races in a row that offer the pick three and wager a mere $1 on three plugs in each race for a total of $27; then do it again one more time. Pay me later!

The target is majority customers with a bankroll of $300 or less. The grandstand customers that come in with only a $100 and spends 12% on a 6 race exotic....he/she has better shot with SCORE-64 than any other 6 race exotic of cashing.
================================================
Lets see where we are 48 hours later
===========================================
Name:SCORE-64
Minimum bet :$1
Maximum bet :$64

The academic is correct. The P5 was not an adequate tradeoff for the takeout increase on other exotic wagers. Still, it was an opportunity to send a message to the industry that some venues have since listened to, even if the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) did not.

Defaulting to the favorite is a weakness in many pools. Is it even possible for the tote to substitute the lowest odds horse at post time not already played in a race with a scratched horse? Could it do that for each of multiple scratches in a race, thereby creating no duplicates?

Perhaps the wager should allow an alternate selection designation as well as whether to create or to avoid duplicates. Which should be the default option for the latter?

Ah, the alternate selection.I’m in favor and support any mechanism that protects and ensures each customer’s SCORE-64 bet to the fullest.

CA had the alternate box option but then a decade ago or so,a self service machine started spitting out superfecta tickets is some bizarre fashion. The CHRB investigated and found tote malfunction error and as I recall the tote company received CHRB permission to temporarily stop the alternate box option. As I recall, this eliminated the alternate box for years and quite frankly forgot about it until Art mentioned it.

The tote companies need to be pushed to provide better software for the industry.I know in CA when they switched the software at the self service machines about 4 years ago...most players wanted the old software/machines back.

Thanks Art.... the alternate box and any other mechanism that ensures customer satisfaction when a horse scratches will be part of the SCORE-64 proposal.

So the entire premise of this bet is to give the little guy a chance to win by restricting the maximum bet allowed. Seeing how that is impossible what is left? A P-6 with no carryover and a diminished chance for a score due to increased payoffs for consolations. Where do I get in line?

You might as well name this bet the Max infinity.

People need to come to grips with the fact that all bets aren’t designed for all players. There are enough bets with very low betting limits to entice just about anybody.

Lastly, the notion that betting more gives you an unbeatable advantage in the P-6 is patently false. I would encourage anybody who believes this to post a meet worth of P-6 plays and bet an imaginary $10,000 a day. This will do 1 of 2 things, it will either convince you that your premise is wrong or it will encourage you to go out and raise money so that you can participate in the easy pickings.

The current P-6 format of unlimited cost per ticket is mathematically a HUGE EDGE with respect to number of selections per race.That’s not a notion....it is fact.

Bottomline.... the majority of winning P-6 tickets from NY,KY and So Cal are high priced tickets.If not, we’d read more stories of winning tickets costing less than $200.I did my own study back in 1996 during Hollywood Park’s Spring/Summer meet and the average winning P-6 ticket when there were 1-5 tickets was just under $900.

SCORE-64 is for those that stopped playing the P-6 or had no interest in playing that format. This is an alternative without a Carryover and 4 winners = GUARANTEE PAYOUT.

SCORE-64 does NOT prevent anybody from betting as much as they want. So even with the faulty premise that the current P-6 rules give big bettors a huge edge, you would not be protected from the big bettors. So from a betting limit standpoint there would be no change. From a bet payoff standpoint the difference is no carryover and more consolation payoffs. If that appeals to you, go for it. But please do not call this a bet that an opportunity to level the so-called playing field for the small bettor. Smart bettors be they big or small will rule the day.

Hate to agree with the minority, but....it seems to me that the majority of the little guys that this might appeal to are like Ray C and Mr. Corrow. The majority of the money is in the win, exacta or trifecta pools, where us with small bankrolls spend most of our cash. The pools are minuscule in comparison Delaware Park tried an interesting pick 6 bet where you could pick your own 6 races and there could only be one winner for the jackpot.They even seeded the pool! A bet that if I remember was available only on track or other Scientific Game tracks, but other tote companies are not going to write the necessary programs without compensation! Don’t see the risk reward ratio as favorable with this bet.

What 6 race multi exotic currently do you see the risk/reward favorable?
===============================================
Andy C- yes, some may want to put in more than 1 maximum ticket but to what extent is unknown but the winning ticket(s) still cost less than $65 and that’s positive news for the industry.

For me personally, none. I’d much rather try to solve the pick 3. Sure with a huge carry-over I would try to catch lightning in a bottle for a couple of bucks. But if you are splitting the pool 3 ways for 6,5,4 correct, what do you see the consolations paying? I could be wrong but I don’t see it paying enough to spark interest.

“yes, some may want to put in more than 1 maximum ticket but to what extent is unknown but the winning ticket(s) still cost less than $65 and that’s positive news for the industry. “

So.....this bet is just a scam so you can tell people the winner only spent a small sum when in reality you have no idea how much was spent. I though racing needed transparancy. Be careful or they will start holding that track management post against you soon Roger....

Scam...what are you talking about? Why are you so angry? The Current P-6 at all tracks...you don’t read 95% of what winning tickets cost and I make a statement at least horseplayers/customers will KNOW each winning SCORE-64 ticket cost less than $65..relax.

Why do you keep harping on your sole argument of unlimited $64 tickets being bet when that’s unknown/unlikely but you haven’t made any reference to winning P-6 tickets that cost from $1,000 and up.Okay...you won’t play SCORE-64. Understood.

No Roger, the winning ticket by definition in your plan costs $1. In NY and CA the winning P6 ticket costs $2. All you are trying to do is limit players to getting 64 of those on each piece of paper, real or virtual.

I’m not angry. I’m pointing out this whole plan is full of holes and wishful thinking, the exact sort of thing track management is always blamed for. Nice to see I’m not the only one that noticed.

The minimum bet $1 ...final proposal will be .50 cents and I’m sure when there are a few major winners EACH DAY ...the media will ask in press box the actual cost of ticket so you’ll get actual winning ticket costs far more than current P-6 revelations.

The whole “plan” full of holes and wishful thinking...that’s your opinion and until a track implements SCORE-64 we won’t know the accuracy of your statement.

No disrespect but it sounds like you are not a regular P-6 player. The majority of regular players that I know(me included) almost never bet 1 ticket. A $1,500 bet might be comprised of 7 or 8 tickets. If you truly believe that a person who bets more in the P-6 has a “huge advantage” you should see that a $64 max ticket does not serve any useful purpose in stopping big bettors.

Seriously. I go there for Preakness weekend. Have a blast every year. My current favorite restaurant is also in Baltimore and have a friend there as well. I enjoy going to Pimlico more than any other track I’ve been too.

Not sure what you rate attractive, 10/1 maybe? You’d best shop that one around as I’m seeing them consistantly in the top 5 at 9/1 or less. Would much rather take Giants or Reds from the NL as both seem to be in double digits and both good teams as well, though Reds handicapped by a bad manager. Got to say though I was thinking Toronto as a good price until I saw what they were at. One site had them chalk. Yankees were paying way better than that. Also want to see the over/under on Baltimore. I’m thinking 88 and under so want to see how people are playing them after an over achieving season. They will improve next year in reality, but I don’t think that improvement will overcome the remarkable 1 run and extra inning wins they had so expect wins to drop. Planning to be in Vegas in a month so will have to look around then.

There are still a few free agents out there so some lines could change. I’m a Giant fan for decades ...had them at 8-1 to win NL but didn’t bet WS last February. I like the Nats better than Giants in 2013...Strasberg
with no restrictions and hopefully a healthier club plus the kid should improve his power numbers.

The Reds will be interesting with Chapman tried as starter in 2013 but like Nats starting pitching better.

I applaud the idea of trying to come up with new bets and new ideas, but this thread just seems like its a ‘lets keep the big bettors down’ thread. Do you really think that big bettors prevent you from winning? Someone here said that they dont want a big bettor to plunk down 4k on a pick 6 and hit for 200k, but if that big bettor loses 5 pick 6s in a row, he’s out 20k.....its hard to hit a pick 6 even with a 4k ticket, you still need to hit your single in order to win the pick 6 even if you invest 4 grand.

Not every bet needs to be affordable for every Tom, Dick and Harry. There is currently a pick 5 available for 50 cents and those payouts can be boxcar and its a bet that is affordable for everyone.

It seems that ‘small bettors’ are always trying to chip away at the pick 6 and make it either more affordable for THEM, or, make a bet that has ‘no advantage’ for someone who might have a bigger bankroll than they do.

No need to be jealous of the big bettors, there are plenty of bets available for small bettors to make monster scores, they dont need to chop the pick 6 down to size in order for it to be affordable for guppies.

Name:

Email:

Location:

Notify me of follow-up comments?

*** HorseRaceInsider will delete any comment that engages in personal attacks directed at anyone, uses foul language, or one made by an imposter using another’s name to express an opinion or comment.

HRI will not, however, edit or discourage those who, with intellectual honesty, disagree with HRI staffers or other readers. We also will not, as is done on some racing sites, edit disagreeable or negative commentary in the interests of commerce.